Should mutants have more of a presence outside the X-Books?

[Steel Inquisitor]

kitty said the n word so its about time she got a refreshment, shaw did nothing wrong and she'll be back anyways, and then it will be shaw's turn to go trough the ressurection carrousel.
maybe ths time kitty comes out the egg less anoying.
#kittyprydeiscancelled

Kitty shouldn't have done that, and its not like Shaw would care she did anyway. He's an imperialist who would be colonising nations if he was leading Krakoa. Shaw committed cold blooded murder of a fellow mutant and did so precisely because he thought she wouldn't be resurrected quickly by the Five. It was a power move.

But that isn't why this incident was a response to the propaganda about Krakao. The two events have one thing in common, Charles Xavier. It was he who convinced Emma to bring Shaw back to the Hellfire Club/Corporation. He had to know betrayals like this was bound to happen and he did it anyway. Decisions like this are the crack in the foundation of Krakoa and why characters outside of Krakoa are questioning its motives. It's also why Krakoa must be a closed society to outsiders to protect its rotten core from being noticed by its own citizens who would normally be fighting back against this sort of corruption.

edit: It's disingenuous to complain how non-mutants/humanity because they bring the risk of colonisation shouldn't be on Krakoa when Krakoa itself aligns itself and employs imperialists and colonising entities in its government so much it goes out to get them, like with Shaw. It aligns itself with the Shi'ar, Kree, and Skrulls who subjectate world with colonial agendas, employs cartels for its own purposes like Reagan, and authorises genocidal tyrants at the highest levels (Apocalypse, Magneto and Shaw are on the Quiet Council and Selene monitors Krakoa itself).

Edit: Here's Shaw explaining how he got the cartels to work for Krakao.
'
https://abload.de/image.php?img=1363kuw.jpg

https://abload.de/image.php?img=13asrjka.jpg

[Zelena]

But that isn't why this incident was a response to the propaganda about Krakao. The two events have one thing in common, Charles Xavier. It was he who convinced Emma to bring Shaw back to the Hellfire Club/Corporation. He had to know betrayals like this was bound to happen and he did it anyway. Decisions like this are the crack in the foundation of Krakoa and why characters outside of Krakoa are questioning its motives. It's also why Krakoa must be a closed society to outsiders to protect its rotten core from being noticed by its own citizens who would normally be fighting back against this sort of corruption.

This new Xavier is supposed to be a pragmatic one…
It is like he does exactly the contrary of what he would have done previously: he segregrates mutants and humans, accepts villains in his inner cercle without extorting strong obediance.
I don’t know… if idealism doesn’t work, this way doesn’t look more efficient neither. It’s hard to imagine he would be that stupid.

[ARkadelphia]

Kitty shouldn't have done that, and its not like Shaw would care she did anyway. He's an imperialist who would be colonising nations if he was leading Krakoa. Shaw committed cold blooded murder of a fellow mutant and did so precisely because he thought she wouldn't be resurrected quickly by the Five. It was a power move.

But that isn't why this incident was a response to the propaganda about Krakao. The two events have one thing in common, Charles Xavier. It was he who convinced Emma to bring Shaw back to the Hellfire Club/Corporation. He had to know betrayals like this was bound to happen and he did it anyway. Decisions like this are the crack in the foundation of Krakoa and why characters outside of Krakoa are questioning its motives. It's also why Krakoa must be a closed society to outsiders to protect its rotten core from being noticed by its own citizens who would normally be fighting back against this sort of corruption.

edit: It's disingenuous to complain how non-mutants/humanity because they bring the risk of colonisation shouldn't be on Krakoa when Krakoa itself aligns itself and employs imperialists and colonising entities in its government so much it goes out to get them, like with Shaw. It aligns itself with the Shi'ar, Kree, and Skrulls who subjectate world with colonial agendas, employs cartels for its own purposes like Reagan, and authorises genocidal tyrants at the highest levels (Apocalypse, Magneto and Shaw are on the Quiet Council and Selene monitors Krakoa itself).

If you think there isn’t bondage going on on Krakoa, you haven’t been reading carefully.

[Ferro]

If you think there isn’t bondage going on on Krakoa, you haven’t been reading carefully.

they haven't it seems.

[capandkirby]

This thread makes me tired. It’s all taking stabs at characters and individual personal opinions, all while being stuck in the false consensus bias in thinking that any opinion expressed here speaks for the majority of Marvel’s readership (the bulk of whom are not on social media discussing comics... online fandom actually makes up a very small percentage of a fanbase. Actually got the figure from a script writer and producer who works in Hollywood once, he posted it on a Trek board, it’s 4%. Only 4% of a viewer/readership is zealous enough to join in online fandom discussion). With comics that number is probably smaller as too many people bootleg comics and are not actually paying customers.

At the end of the day Marvel will do what any business does: take the path that will appeal to the majority of their paying customers. That means that if the bulk of fans want the X-Men to remain as a part of the larger Marvel Universe with crossovers than the X-Men are going to remain as a larger part of the Marvel Universe with crossovers and that is that.

RE: Kitty Pryde: there is no such thing as a ‘bad’ character, there are only bad writers. Every single character at Marvel is one fantastic writer away from being amazing or one bad writer away from being terrible. With intellectual properties as old as most of Marvel’s catalogue it’s a fact of life that most of these characters have a history of both good and bad runs to their name. To focus on only the bad is not only a bad faith reading but it’s cherry picking, and that is a logical fallacy. Kitty is a Jewish character, so representation-wise she has the potential to give some much needed and in-depth representation to the Marvel Universe. She shouldn’t be defined by one bad writer’s clear racism. Give her to a POC writer to explore and expand on her and watch her shine.

RE: Steve Rogers and the Captain America mantle.

In literally Every. Single. Cap. Run. since Englehart Cap has stated that he does not support the government, he supports the ideals, the ‘dream’. Literally every Cap fan has this fact permanently tattoo’d into their brain because a variation of this is stated in every run:



Moreover Cap is infamous for openly rebelling from the US government whenever he disagrees. He became Nomad because of Nixon’s corruption. He became The Captain rather than work for Reagan, whom he, elegantly, told to piss off when the Reagan administration tried to forcibly draft him. When he didn’t agree with the SHRA (an allegory for the Patriot Act) he rebelled against the Bush administration. Just recently, in Aaron’s Avengers, he told the US government off again. Conflating Cap with the government indicates a lack of knowledge of the character. And yes, Cap is a proponent of free speech even if he very much detests the speech being said. He recognizes the importance of a democratic society because the guy fought in WW2 and saw, first hand, the dangers of speech and press suppression. Hitler was able to accomplish what he did because he controlled the press and the narrative and no one was allowed to dissent.

RE: Marvel’s Cash Cow. In 2015 it was as announced that the most lucrative superhero/franchise was Spider-Man, who, with licensing for merch as well as comics, brings in 1.3 billion a year. The closest superhero or team to that was Batman, who brings in $494m a year. So as you can see, it’s not even a close contest. The X-Men, while yes, popular, are not actually the IP carrying Marvel. Look at it this way, when you go into a store, how much Spider-Man product (t-shirts, Funkos, chewable multi-vitamins) do you see versus the X-Men? Probably more Spider-Man. There’s your answer. I’m not denying the X-Men’s popularity what I am saying is they are far from being Marvel’s cash cow.

The most lucrative part of an IP is not movie box office. It’s licensing. It’s owning that IP outright so you can charge companies to use their likeness. This is why Disney wasn’t satisfied with buying just film rights, the way Fox and Sony did, they wanted everything. This is why Sony got the short end of the stick in lending Peter Parker’s film rights back to Disney as the deal was Sony would get the box office returns but Disney got MCU Peter’s licensing profits.

When and if the X-Men as a franchise can bring in billions in licensing just by themselves then, and only then, maybe, Marvel might consider separating them into their own universe.

[Zelena]

This thread makes me tired. It’s all taking stabs at characters and individual personal opinions, all while being stuck in the false consensus bias in thinking that any opinion expressed here speaks for the majority of Marvel’s readership (the bulk of whom are not on social media discussing comics... online fandom actually makes up a very small percentage of a fanbase. Actually got the figure from a script writer and producer who works in Hollywood once, he posted it on a Trek board, it’s 4%. Only 4% of a viewer/readership is zealous enough to join in online fandom discussion). With comics that number is probably smaller as too many people bootleg comics and are not actually paying customers.

Interesting and well-argued post.
I doubt that anyone on this forum would think that he could influence Marvel, though…

[Revolutionary_Jack]

This thread makes me tired. It’s all taking stabs at characters and individual personal opinions, all while being stuck in the false consensus bias in thinking that any opinion expressed here speaks for the majority of Marvel’s readership (the bulk of whom are not on social media discussing comics... online fandom actually makes up a very small percentage of a fanbase. Actually got the figure from a script writer and producer who works in Hollywood once, he posted it on a Trek board, it’s 4%. Only 4% of a viewer/readership is zealous enough to join in online fandom discussion). With comics that number is probably smaller as too many people bootleg comics and are not actually paying customers.

At the end of the day Marvel will do what any business does: take the path that will appeal to the majority of their paying customers. That means that if the bulk of fans want the X-Men to remain as a part of the larger Marvel Universe with crossovers than the X-Men are going to remain as a larger part of the Marvel Universe with crossovers and that is that.

RE: Kitty Pryde: there is no such thing as a ‘bad’ character, there are only bad writers. Every single character at Marvel is one fantastic writer away from being amazing or one bad writer away from being terrible. With intellectual properties as old as most of Marvel’s catalogue it’s a fact of life that most of these characters have a history of both good and bad runs to their name. To focus on only the bad is not only a bad faith reading but it’s cherry picking, and that is a logical fallacy. Kitty is a Jewish character, so representation-wise she has the potential to give some much needed and in-depth representation to the Marvel Universe. She shouldn’t be defined by one bad writer’s clear racism. Give her to a POC writer to explore and expand on her and watch her shine.

RE: Steve Rogers and the Captain America mantle.

In literally Every. Single. Cap. Run. since Englehart Cap has stated that he does not support the government, he supports the ideals, the ‘dream’. Literally every Cap fan has this fact permanently tattoo’d into their brain because a variation of this is stated in every run:



Moreover Cap is infamous for openly rebelling from the US government whenever he disagrees. He became Nomad because of Nixon’s corruption. He became The Captain rather than work for Reagan, whom he, elegantly, told to piss off when the Reagan administration tried to forcibly draft him. When he didn’t agree with the SHRA (an allegory for the Patriot Act) he rebelled against the Bush administration. Just recently, in Aaron’s Avengers, he told the US government off again. Conflating Cap with the government indicates a lack of knowledge of the character. And yes, Cap is a proponent of free speech even if he very much detests the speech being said. He recognizes the importance of a democratic society because the guy fought in WW2 and saw, first hand, the dangers of speech and press suppression. Hitler was able to accomplish what he did because he controlled the press and the narrative and no one was allowed to dissent.

RE: Marvel’s Cash Cow. In 2015 it was as announced that the most lucrative superhero/franchise was Spider-Man, who, with licensing for merch as well as comics, brings in 1.3 billion a year. The closest superhero or team to that was Batman, who brings in $494m a year. So as you can see, it’s not even a close contest. The X-Men, while yes, popular, are not actually the IP carrying Marvel. Look at it this way, when you go into a store, how much Spider-Man product (t-shirts, Funkos, chewable multi-vitamins) do you see versus the X-Men? Probably more Spider-Man. There’s your answer. I’m not denying the X-Men’s popularity what I am saying is they are far from being Marvel’s cash cow.

The most lucrative part of an IP is not movie box office. It’s licensing. It’s owning that IP outright so you can charge companies to use their likeness. This is why Disney wasn’t satisfied with buying just film rights, the way Fox and Sony did, they wanted everything. This is why Sony got the short end of the stick in lending Peter Parker’s film rights back to Disney as the deal was Sony would get the box office returns but Disney got MCU Peter’s licensing profits.

When and if the X-Men as a franchise can bring in billions in licensing just by themselves then, and only then, maybe, Marvel might consider separating them into their own universe.

Agree with this. A welcome note of calm for all.

[Stormultt Divine]

But...I don't wanna calm down, i wanna keep arguing and stuff =/

[Iron Maiden]

This thread makes me tired. It’s all taking stabs at characters and individual personal opinions, all while being stuck in the false consensus bias in thinking that any opinion expressed here speaks for the majority of Marvel’s readership (the bulk of whom are not on social media discussing comics... online fandom actually makes up a very small percentage of a fanbase. Actually got the figure from a script writer and producer who works in Hollywood once, he posted it on a Trek board, it’s 4%. Only 4% of a viewer/readership is zealous enough to join in online fandom discussion). With comics that number is probably smaller as too many people bootleg comics and are not actually paying customers.

At the end of the day Marvel will do what any business does: take the path that will appeal to the majority of their paying customers. That means that if the bulk of fans want the X-Men to remain as a part of the larger Marvel Universe with crossovers than the X-Men are going to remain as a larger part of the Marvel Universe with crossovers and that is that.

RE: Kitty Pryde: there is no such thing as a ‘bad’ character, there are only bad writers. Every single character at Marvel is one fantastic writer away from being amazing or one bad writer away from being terrible. With intellectual properties as old as most of Marvel’s catalogue it’s a fact of life that most of these characters have a history of both good and bad runs to their name. To focus on only the bad is not only a bad faith reading but it’s cherry picking, and that is a logical fallacy. Kitty is a Jewish character, so representation-wise she has the potential to give some much needed and in-depth representation to the Marvel Universe. She shouldn’t be defined by one bad writer’s clear racism. Give her to a POC writer to explore and expand on her and watch her shine.

RE: Steve Rogers and the Captain America mantle.

In literally Every. Single. Cap. Run. since Englehart Cap has stated that he does not support the government, he supports the ideals, the ‘dream’. Literally every Cap fan has this fact permanently tattoo’d into their brain because a variation of this is stated in every run:



Moreover Cap is infamous for openly rebelling from the US government whenever he disagrees. He became Nomad because of Nixon’s corruption. He became The Captain rather than work for Reagan, whom he, elegantly, told to piss off when the Reagan administration tried to forcibly draft him. When he didn’t agree with the SHRA (an allegory for the Patriot Act) he rebelled against the Bush administration. Just recently, in Aaron’s Avengers, he told the US government off again. Conflating Cap with the government indicates a lack of knowledge of the character. And yes, Cap is a proponent of free speech even if he very much detests the speech being said. He recognizes the importance of a democratic society because the guy fought in WW2 and saw, first hand, the dangers of speech and press suppression. Hitler was able to accomplish what he did because he controlled the press and the narrative and no one was allowed to dissent.

RE: Marvel’s Cash Cow. In 2015 it was as announced that the most lucrative superhero/franchise was Spider-Man, who, with licensing for merch as well as comics, brings in 1.3 billion a year. The closest superhero or team to that was Batman, who brings in $494m a year. So as you can see, it’s not even a close contest. The X-Men, while yes, popular, are not actually the IP carrying Marvel. Look at it this way, when you go into a store, how much Spider-Man product (t-shirts, Funkos, chewable multi-vitamins) do you see versus the X-Men? Probably more Spider-Man. There’s your answer. I’m not denying the X-Men’s popularity what I am saying is they are far from being Marvel’s cash cow.

The most lucrative part of an IP is not movie box office. It’s licensing. It’s owning that IP outright so you can charge companies to use their likeness. This is why Disney wasn’t satisfied with buying just film rights, the way Fox and Sony did, they wanted everything. This is why Sony got the short end of the stick in lending Peter Parker’s film rights back to Disney as the deal was Sony would get the box office returns but Disney got MCU Peter’s licensing profits.

When and if the X-Men as a franchise can bring in billions in licensing just by themselves then, and only then, maybe, Marvel might consider separating them into their own universe.

Thanks for great post that really hammers home the importance of Spider-Man,(who I brought up a couple of pages ago ). And he has a much longer track record for this then any of their IP. The X-Men are a flash in the pan by comparison. Spider-Man has been in continuous publication since 1962. The X-Men had been cancelled once or twice. Even the FF have had to come back from Ike Perlmutter exile.

[Iron Maiden]

But...I don't wanna calm down, i wanna keep arguing and stuff =/

There's always Twitter

[Revolutionary_Jack]

Thanks for great post that really hammers home the importance of Spider-Man,(who I brought up a couple of pages ago ). And he has a much longer track record for this then any of their IP. The X-Men are a flash in the pan by comparison. Spider-Man has been in continuous publication since 1962. The X-Men had been cancelled once or twice. Even the FF have had to come back from Ike Perlmutter exile.

The X-Men have only been canceled once, that was the Lee-Kirby era where due to low sales it cancelled and went into reprints, until revived with Giant Size X-Men and then Claremont, and since then, X-Men titles of some kind or another have been in continuous publication even during "The Lost Years" (As Hickman dubs them) of the Post-HOM era.

Spider-Man being #1 is indusputable. He's currently approaching Issue #850 and in a few years will become the first Marvel ongoing to reach 1000 issues.

[Kaitou D. Kid]

"Otherness" has different elements to it. Positive and negative. The negative element you refer to is obvious, but there's a positive element to the concept, namely in terms of challenging and interrogating our sense of the normal and our sense of what we take to be normal. Romanticism in the classic era in its empathy for the outsider was all based on the positive concept, and X-Men is very much based on that (Blake, Byron, the 2 Shelleys). And before you point out Romanticism's negative impact and influence, I'll point out that William Blake, Byron and the Shelleys were avant-garde and political radicals and Percy Shelley especially was an inspiration for many revolutionaries and radical thinkers (Marx and Gandhi for instance). While some part of "otherness" in terms of racism and xenophobia definitely is propaganda...the concept of otherness like say, comprehending high level mathematics far beyond the classical model of physics that largely shapes our visual perception, or you know the existential dread we have when we contemplate how random and meaningless existence actually is...that part of otherness is real. The fact is the problem isn't with otherness, the problem is with "normal", because that's always a fiction to some degree or the other. Acceptable only for the value we currently ascribe to it.

Think of Wolverine, a person who has lived for more than a century, has had amnesia, fought multiple world wars...that's something quite remote and alien from a normal person's life. Think of Cyclops, who at the age of 8 was separate from his parents and younger brother, whose father became a Space Pirate, whose mother became a sex slave to a Shiar Emperor. Scott Summers spent the first 8 years of his life as a civilian human citizen of the US, and from the age of 8 his life was shaped by a Galactic Civilization several light-years away. Think of Jean Grey who, even as a mutant, had a normal life until her mid-20s and has spent her adult life in different states of death and undeath. And Hickman has given us Moira Kinross, taking the most seemingly normal human and without giving her obvious extra powers and abilities, making her into the uncanniest mutant of all with her reincarnation and constant treadmill regeneration that has allowed her to live with the lifetimes of many milennia.

Their lives challenge the linear conception of physics, consciousness, history, that most people on this planet (well until the Covid Pandemic at any rate) consider daily life. I mean consider the otherness that combat veterans experience when confronting civilian life again. Calling "otherness" a "cognitive distortion" to be overcome seems quite dubious to me, psychologically speaking. It definitely goes against everything Freud argued (and Freud happily is making a comeback in neuroscience these days). Freud of course wrote the landmark essay on "The Uncanny" which is what gave that adjective the meaning we now ascribe to it, and which is what Uncanny X-Men refers to. For Freud the idea of uncanny isn't about xenophobia or fear of the other, it's about the moments when our sense of normality and understanding of reality is suddenly challenged.



In America, people aren't taught evolution in schools, so politically a major franchise basing itself on that premise, is politically quite useful.

On a more serious note,just because there's been misuse about evolution stuff into braindead stuff like social darwininsim and eugenics doesn't mean that everything tied to evolution is icky. Historically, the X-Men comics have always had a left-ward fan base, and a diverse readership. The concept of mutants being the next step of evolution and being preyed on by Homo Sapiens is ultimately a metaphor for how the power-holders will ultimately suck the blood of the children to further their power. This isn't a new thing.

"You cannot wish us away. you cannot ignore us. We — Homo Sapiens Superior — are your children. We are the next generation of humanity. What kind of parent fears his progeny? Tries to murder them? Is this the legacy you wish to leave?"
— From "The Trial of Magneto" (Uncanny X-Men #200 Vol. 1) written by Chris Claremont

Magneto considers mutants to be humanity's children, and humanity will devour its children, torture them, murder them, rather than accept or leave behind a worthy legacy for the next state of evolution. As the Librarian tells Moira in HOUSE OF X #6 - "Look around you, Moira Kinross. See the cage. That's inevitable. Not you being outside of it." Or as the Raputin Chimera says in POX#1 "You've forgotten that machines have no souls...and that humans lost theirs a long time ago."
.

That's not far from the generational anger many Millennials and Zoomers feel towards baby boomers sucking the welfare state dry and poisoning the planet for their own self-satisfied consumerism while their kids and grandkids have to relive the early 20th Century.



This part is fair, in terms of misgivings people have towards Krakoa in Hickman's run.

Let me say the following. By embodying a sense of otherness I mean that the concept of Krakoa, a society by mutants, for mutants, and of mutants, is going to look different from a non-mutant society in every way, in terms of property, religion, social codes, family structure, norms about monogamy and polygamy, justice and so on. This isn't any different from how LGBTQ people have created communities that look so different from heteronormative societies. The great cultural products we have seen that came from this movement, have presented and challenged and given the world entirely new kinds of fashion, language, music, and identities.

This seems like a long way of saying the X-Men are about acceptance and solidarity in spite of any differences (beliefs, lifestyle choices, etc.). That is all true and well, but it doesn't mean they can't be integrated better into the larger MU. If anything it's more of a reason why they should have more of a presence among people who live more "mainstream" or "conventional" lives (Spider-Man, the Avengers, etc.).

[Triniking1234]

But...I don't wanna calm down, i wanna keep arguing and stuff =/

Buy an Xbox.

[JudicatorPrime]

Wonder how long they'll keep the Krak-Narnia thing going? A serpent for every Eden, a Morning Star for every Heaven, I say.

[Ferro]

This thread makes me tired. It’s all taking stabs at characters and individual personal opinions, all while being stuck in the false consensus bias in thinking that any opinion expressed here speaks for the majority of Marvel’s readership (the bulk of whom are not on social media discussing comics... online fandom actually makes up a very small percentage of a fanbase. Actually got the figure from a script writer and producer who works in Hollywood once, he posted it on a Trek board, it’s 4%. Only 4% of a viewer/readership is zealous enough to join in online fandom discussion). With comics that number is probably smaller as too many people bootleg comics and are not actually paying customers.

At the end of the day Marvel will do what any business does: take the path that will appeal to the majority of their paying customers. That means that if the bulk of fans want the X-Men to remain as a part of the larger Marvel Universe with crossovers than the X-Men are going to remain as a larger part of the Marvel Universe with crossovers and that is that.

RE: Kitty Pryde: there is no such thing as a ‘bad’ character, there are only bad writers. Every single character at Marvel is one fantastic writer away from being amazing or one bad writer away from being terrible. With intellectual properties as old as most of Marvel’s catalogue it’s a fact of life that most of these characters have a history of both good and bad runs to their name. To focus on only the bad is not only a bad faith reading but it’s cherry picking, and that is a logical fallacy. Kitty is a Jewish character, so representation-wise she has the potential to give some much needed and in-depth representation to the Marvel Universe. She shouldn’t be defined by one bad writer’s clear racism. Give her to a POC writer to explore and expand on her and watch her shine.

RE: Steve Rogers and the Captain America mantle.

In literally Every. Single. Cap. Run. since Englehart Cap has stated that he does not support the government, he supports the ideals, the ‘dream’. Literally every Cap fan has this fact permanently tattoo’d into their brain because a variation of this is stated in every run:



Moreover Cap is infamous for openly rebelling from the US government whenever he disagrees. He became Nomad because of Nixon’s corruption. He became The Captain rather than work for Reagan, whom he, elegantly, told to piss off when the Reagan administration tried to forcibly draft him. When he didn’t agree with the SHRA (an allegory for the Patriot Act) he rebelled against the Bush administration. Just recently, in Aaron’s Avengers, he told the US government off again. Conflating Cap with the government indicates a lack of knowledge of the character. And yes, Cap is a proponent of free speech even if he very much detests the speech being said. He recognizes the importance of a democratic society because the guy fought in WW2 and saw, first hand, the dangers of speech and press suppression. Hitler was able to accomplish what he did because he controlled the press and the narrative and no one was allowed to dissent.

RE: Marvel’s Cash Cow. In 2015 it was as announced that the most lucrative superhero/franchise was Spider-Man, who, with licensing for merch as well as comics, brings in 1.3 billion a year. The closest superhero or team to that was Batman, who brings in $494m a year. So as you can see, it’s not even a close contest. The X-Men, while yes, popular, are not actually the IP carrying Marvel. Look at it this way, when you go into a store, how much Spider-Man product (t-shirts, Funkos, chewable multi-vitamins) do you see versus the X-Men? Probably more Spider-Man. There’s your answer. I’m not denying the X-Men’s popularity what I am saying is they are far from being Marvel’s cash cow.

The most lucrative part of an IP is not movie box office. It’s licensing. It’s owning that IP outright so you can charge companies to use their likeness. This is why Disney wasn’t satisfied with buying just film rights, the way Fox and Sony did, they wanted everything. This is why Sony got the short end of the stick in lending Peter Parker’s film rights back to Disney as the deal was Sony would get the box office returns but Disney got MCU Peter’s licensing profits.

When and if the X-Men as a franchise can bring in billions in licensing just by themselves then, and only then, maybe, Marvel might consider separating them into their own universe.

Kitty: that's a very clear counter argument for a comment that was quite clearly not meant to be taken seriously.

Captain america: yeah, no.
No one outside the us buys that maloney, im sorry. You wear the flag you also get everything it entails and it's history of genocide, slavery and imperialism , no matter how many codenames and costumes stove takes and takes off, he always goes back to the white, red and blue, making it meaningless in the end as he returns to a comfortable status as a poster boy.
Also that panel just doesnt cut it for me especially if it's meant to be "tatooed", it's called the "american dream" because youd have to be asleep to believe in it, no matter the amount of pretty misdirections will change that in the eyes of anyone outside that bubble of propaganda, you can enjoy your favorite character but don't patronize me for having an opinion that isn't that outrageous.

and third, I never referenced spider men ever because im not delusional to pretend he isn't the uncontested top dog in marvel, he is also allowed to be self removed to a certain degree and has proven not to need the rest of marvel in any way, in fact seems to be even benefit from higher isolation, my grievences are directed at the rest.